Police and government are on a wide-scale campaign to make us love our local mosque. The reason is cowardly – to help prevent further attacks by Islamists. Islam presents a confusing face to the West and try to claim that terrorists are ‘not Islamic’, even though they clearly ARE and say so! I find the government agenda dangerous and uncritical, having no real understanding of what Islam is all about. Mosques and other establishments around the world are teaching gross violence. Therefore, it is rather foolish for the UK government to assume mosques in the UK are all pure and loving. The first link below shows how ‘loving’ those teaching children are! From my many sources this behaviour exactly reflects the majority view of Muslims towards children. Not all in the business of teaching Islam are violent – but enough of them exist to be wary of.

(Note that of almost 1700 mosques in the UK, only two have amended their beliefs to suit the modern world)

Undercover Mosque is a documentary programme produced by the independent television company Hardcash Productions[1] for the Channel 4 series Dispatches that was first broadcast on 15 January 2007 in the UK. The documentary presents video footage gathered from 12 months of secret investigation into mosques throughout Britain. The documentary caused a furore in Britain and the world press due to the extremist content of the released footage. West Midlands Police investigated whether criminal offences had been committed by those teaching or preaching at the Mosques and other establishments. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

Of course, the ever-PC police force try to blacken the names of any who bring attention to imams and mosques guilty of hatred.

The following quote is from a government paper/report... and how do we trust a government that allows and fosters Islam to do whatever it wishes? And how can we trust it when what it says is counter to investigative work by others? I am naturally very analytical and this Report does not wash with me. (The Report: Roots of violent radicalisation; Nineteenth Report of Session 2010-12. House of Commons Home Affairs Committee.

“32. Charles Farr told us that violent radicalisation in mosques or other religious institutions comprises “no more than 1% or 2%” of the total cases of radicalisation. Our witnesses tended to agree that there was very little threat from the mosques. Alyas Karmani, for example, argued that “mosques are completely disconnected from young at risk Muslims”. The Prevent Strategy states that community resistance has reduced the open operation of radical preachers and driven many to operate out of private homes or the internet. Consequently, while the Strategy cautions ongoing vigilance against potential threats, its focus on mosques is more as a tool to help in countering extremist ideology by presenting competing points of view”

Sadly, few police chiefs and others understand how to research properly or how to be critical of certain findings. They accept these Reports as if proven and beyond criticism. This is a dangerous practice. At the latter end of the report there was further lack of criticism of statements made; they were simply accepted to be true! This is the very opposite of true police work.

Also, very few academics have studied counter-terrorism (Leiden University report: Countering Radicalisation by engaging mosques and imams: The UK’s Case’. See https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/38036/Zahra%20Shah%20-%20Thesis.pdf?sequence=1 , which means that those who do, become the ‘experts’ used by police and government. Again, not a suitable way to examine the facts. More needs to be used – and especially those whose views are NOT government/police inspired. We only have the word of pro-Islamists who say ‘mosques are not involved’. This is NOT what a more rounded set of sources proclaim! The Report, p7, includes: “London mosques have been under increasing scrutiny since key cases such as the issue of Abu Hamza, who served as the imam of Finsbury Park Mosque, recruited for terrorism, and incited racial hatred. Suspected Al Qai’da member Kamel Bourgass and Zacarias Moussaoui who was allegedly involved in the 9/11 plot, were also known to have visited there (Dean and Allen 2006). Further to this, mosque preachers have also been made accountable for indirectly facilitating radicalisation. A reason for this is that most imams have come to the UK from abroad and do not understand Western culture; nor can they speak English. This creates inaccessibility between them and youth, pushing youth to seek answers elsewhere. Some imams have also been directly responsible for spreading radical Islamic interpretations (Bureš 2011). Many radical preachers have been prosecuted, arrested, deported, or refused entry to the UK (Home Office 2011).

The point is this – we cannot rely on the veracity of imams who claim they are not terroristic, any more than we can rely on Ian Brady to say he was not a murderer. We may only conclude that possibly some might not be terroristic and some are. To firmly say that what the imams say should be accepted as truth is a danger, and is certainly not evidence of a critical analysis. It should be remembered that just one terrorist can potentially kill hundreds, and because they ALL arise from the same ‘melting pot’ of Islam, we should be wary of all Muslims. Police do this all the time – if a youngster’s family is always in trouble with police, they naturally observe that youngster for the same traits. If they do not observe they are fools, even if nothing has yet been proved against the youngster.

We could give many more sources that show the part taken by mosques in Britain and around the world in terror and terroristic teaching. We only have the word of mosques, who say they are not terroristic. And undercover agents who say the same may, or may not, be speaking truth (re Stockholm Syndrome). Also, times before and after their infiltration may, or may not, have been terroristic. The major fact is that worldwide Islam is pro-terror and pro-violence... why should UK Islam be different? In other words, we may never know the true extent of mosque-led/supportive terror links. Islam is about conquest and violence. To ignore this is to conduct weak and uncritical studies.